House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to address such an issue. This issue is important not just for Quebec and Canada, but for the world and for all future international relations.

As one can see, each word of the Bloc Quebecois motion tabled by the hon. member for Saint-Jean is there for a reason and should get the support of the House of Commons. The motion reads as follows:

That this House consider the sending of troops to Iraq by the government only after the United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution explicitly authorizing a military intervention in Iraq.

With this motion, we want to ensure that the House of Commons can vote on the sending of troops to Iraq, and we are also defending the role of Parliament in the making of such decisions.

Like the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians, I want to say loud and clear that I disapprove any participation in a military intervention that is not be supported by the UN Security Council.

We must not lose track of past mistakes and of the reason for establishing the United Nations Organization in 1945. Since the last world war, all nations of the world have realized that war has made too many victims and caused too much hardship to allow us to get into any armed conflict without getting the Security Council, the UN's primary peacekeeping body, onside.

The United Nations Organization was based on the August 1941 Atlantic Charter, whereby U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wanted future generations to inherit an organization that would protect them against human stupidity and do everything it could to ensure that innocent victims were no longer counted in the millions as they were in the last world war. The whole world said, “Let there never be such horrors again”.

The successors of Roosevelt and Churchill should not be the ones, more than 60 years later, to ignore the historical weight of and the raison d'être of the Security Council.

I want all my constituents in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm to know that I am not one to ignore the past. That is why I wholeheartedly support this motion. I totally disagree with any participation in a military intervention without the support of the United Nations Security Council.

The motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is clear and unequivocal. We cannot consider sending troops into Iraq without the UN explicitly authorizing it. It is up to the UN to decide whether military force should be used or not, and it must do so in a second resolution.

Like many of my fellow citizens, try as I may to keep abreast of developments, listen to the news, read whatever reports are available, understand the evasive Canadian position, and assess the inspectors' evidence, for the time being, no one knows for sure whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

Convinced that Iraq does have such weapons, some people in the U.S. believe that the United States, in conjunction with the whole world, must take military action to ensure security worldwide. So far, UN inspectors have not found anything that would indicate that the Iraqi nuclear program is up and running again.

Knowing the man, it is obvious that Saddam Hussein would certainly like to obtain a nuclear weapon and that he probably already has chemical and biological weapons at his disposal. But one cannot take justice into one's own hands based on presumptions.

A pre-emptive attack based on nothing definite would be illegal from an international point of view. No country is entitled to attack another one based on mere suspicion. In this case, as in many others, hard evidence required and Americans do not have them.

Not only is it a deadly blow to the UN Security Council's credibility, but it also creates a dangerous precedent.

Once the United States has attacked Iraq on mere presumptions, what will prevent other countries from taking measures to put an end to threats that they consider even more pressing? Where will it all end?

The United States cannot be considered any differently from the others because of its power and of the role it plays on the international level. On the contrary, because it is one of the best armed and the most economically vibrant nations, it has to set an example. It is not pre-emptive military action that is needed against Iraq, but pre-emptive diplomacy.

The international inspectors are expected to present their report to the United Nations Security Council on February 14. Will the evidence contained in this report be sufficient to help the Security Council reach a decision? Will the Security Council adopt a second resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq?

Whatever the outcome, before Canada decides on any action, military or otherwise, a vote should be held in this House.

A simple debate without a formal vote is not enough, just as a vote on approving a decision already taken by the Prime Minister and cabinet would sour Canadian democracy and would not be acceptable.

Just like the U.S. congressmen who passed a motion giving the President the right to send troops to Iraq, and just like England, where Tony Blair maintains that he will ask for the United Kingdom's House of Commons' consent before taking military action against Iraq, it is imperative that we vote in the House on a possible military intervention before the Prime Minister decides to involve Canada in a war against Iraq.

This is absolutely crucial. The repercussions of a possible intervention are too serious not to give the elected representatives of Canada and Quebec the chance to vote as their conscience dictates on such a crucial issue.

I feel I was elected in December precisely to fight for democracy, to give my opinion on some fundamental issues like this one and to express the views of the people of Berthier—Montcalm.

Military intervention means that the life of Quebeckers will be at stake. Is there any decision more important than one which could cost the lives of our fellow citizens?

The decisions taken in the next few days could have a major impact on the future of Canada, of Quebec and of the whole world.

Our behaviour and our choices, as elected representatives of course, but as responsible human beings as well, will define the international order, set new legal standards, change the international environment, but first and foremost, in the immediate future, give meaning to the role and raison d'être of the UN Security Council.

Nationally, taking a vote in the House of Communes will ensure democracy is front and centre however we respond to the current situation, thereby giving credibility to Canada's voice and to the Prime Minister's actions on the international scene.

I cannot understand why we have to try to convince the Liberal government of the importance of taking a vote before making a decision on a fundamental question like entering into war with another country. When the Liberals opposite were in opposition, at the time of the Gulf War, they asked the Conservative government for a formal vote.

I will quote what Liberal member Herb Gray said about a motion put forward by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs:

Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.

Similarly, we insist that the elected representatives of Canada and Quebec get to vote on this issue. I encourage all members of this House to start by taking my lead and supporting the motion before us.

Then, depending on the UN Security Council's final decision and the second resolution it may adopt, we will have the opportunity to discuss the issue further and finalize our position.

The importance of this issue and its international implications are such that it is imperative that we consider it seriously and take whatever time we need to do so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord Québec

Liberal

André Harvey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment. I think that everyone agrees on the importance of the role played by the United Nations.

In all the debates since this morning, there was a tendency to adopt an anti-American attitude, which is a very shallow thing to do. Events occurred, and I am thinking of the former Yugoslavia where intervention was not quick enough.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, whom I wish to congratulate, a quick question. This is one of the first times he has risen in the House to speak.

Does he think that deploying American and British troops will have an impact on the effectiveness of the inspectors? I would like to try to strike a balance.

The role Americans have played for many decades in the preservation of freedom is considered quite constructive. In this respect, would the inspectors better assume their role if the Americans had not deployed troops to the Persian Gulf? The figure is 150,000 troops.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, let us say that there would not have been war if there had not been inspectors. The UN inspectors and the Americans were there, increasing the pressure.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member asserted in his remarks that nobody is really certain whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. I am not aware of a single sovereign nation in the world, let alone among the 16 in the UN Security Council, with the exception of the Saddam Baath regime in Iraq, which contests the assertion that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, contrary to its obligations under the UN Security Council resolution.

Could the member please specify for us a single country which he may be familiar with which questions whether or not Iraq actually is in possession of illegal weapons of mass destruction? Could he bring some evidence that I am not aware of that Iraq is in fact not in possession of such weapons?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is not the question. The question is whether there is any clear evidence. So far, even Colin Powell has not convinced the members of the UN Security Council.

My colleague has spoken about this, but I have doubts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely missing the point. I wish people would read the resolution and understand how has evolved to this point. The whole point is the United Nations says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations, not the United States, says that it must bring those weapons out into the open, destroy them and show them to be destroyed. That is the issue. The weapons inspectors are to inspect the destruction of the weapons. They are not to prove that these weapons exist. They are not trying to find a needle in a haystack.

I urge the member not to debate whether they should go to war. That is a good enough question, but do not garble the facts. The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations is clear and unequivocal. The weapons exist. Get them out there, show them to be destroyed and this deal probably will be settled quickly.

However, it is not up to us in the opposition, or the United Nations inspectors or the United States to prove the weapons exist. The United Nations says that they exist and until they are destroyed, there is a problem with Iraq.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations are not the ones who are going to decide whether they are in the right or not, it is the Security Council. Several countries have a veto power. I think that France and Germany, both closer to that region than we are, have some serious doubts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

An hon. member

There is resolution 1441.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Enough of resolution 1441. I know it off by heart, I have been hearing about it all day long.

That is not the question. The question is that we have to use our heads and say that, if the Security Council wants us to go, then go we will. In the meantime, we have no right to do so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, the last time the House debated this a few days ago I had the privilege to speak for a few moments before the debate ended at about 1:30 in the morning. Consequently my speech was truncated. Therefore I am delighted to have a chance to, if not complete the speech that never was fully given, at least make a few remarks on behalf of my constituents from Scarborough--Rouge River.

The issue today is Canada's position on sending troops to Iraq. Certainly that decision is yet to be made. It is a very important debate and members on both sides of the House are letting the House and the government know where they stand.

Nobody wants a war, and I am not even sure that war is the right term to be used here. I prefer to think of the term “military engagement” or “enforcement action” in the event that something does mature.

I was disappointed last night to hear a news item, which said something like Iraq had indicated that it was prepared to agree to provide additional and more information about its weapons. That was disappointing because to me it meant that Iraq had not been forthcoming previously. It meant that our friends in the United States were correct when they said that Iraq was lying, that it was not being forthright and that it was hiding information.

Perhaps, a little naively, I had hoped that there would not be weapons and that Iraq had done its best although under some disability to deal with the issue. I do not know and Canadians do not know if that news report is accurate. However if it is accurate, that means the powers that be here and in other world capitals cannot fail to take note of the fact the Iraqis have not bellied up to the trough and may not be doing so now. This is a serious issue.

I can see the news reports, I can see the military build-up and I can see Canada struggling with this issue. Nobody wants to go to war. Nobody wants to put our armed forces in harm's way, at least in a way that can be messy, death-like and costly not just for now but for many years.

Therefore I start off with that sense of not really wanting to go there. If forced to go there and if Canadians feel that they have to do it for our security or world security, then we have done it in the past and I am pretty sure that Canadians will want to do it again.

I want to make a short remark about the business of bringing forth intelligence information. Maybe we really have not seen everything there is to see. Strategically, if we have intelligence information, we do not want to make it publicly available. If we do, two things happen. We may give up our source and we may give up our edge. No country that invests millions and billions of dollars, such as the U.S. does, wants to give up its edge or its source. Sources may be very sensitive. Therefore we may not see everything.

I am pretty sure from time to time our leaders in Canada see things on the security side that Canadians do not need to see and which we in the House do not see. They make decisions for our own security based on that information.

What should we do if things mature the way they seem to be moving now? I hope they do not go the distance. However I want to point out that the Americans appear to have been our allies. We appear to have been their allies. It is about 189 years since the war of 1812. That is a lot of allied companionship over the years. There have been a lot of world issues and Canadians have a strong bond with our American cousins and vice versa in many of these conflicts.

It is true that we did not march off with the Americans in the Mexican war, the Spanish civil war or the Spanish-American war. However we have had common cause with our American cousins for many years and that is not likely to change in the next few weeks.

Canadians have also signalled to me that if anything matures, it must be on a multilateral UN based approach. I realize we do not necessarily have the final resolution of the UN Security Council. I realize some countries agree and others do not agree. However Canada does not sit on the Security Council. Therefore this issue will evolve pretty much with exchanges between diplomats and the odd phone call between world leaders. Some phone calls have already occurred and they will continue over the next few days. In fairness that is how some of these things happen internationally now and there really is no another way to do it. They will not take 30 to 60 days to bring a big conference together to deal with this. The decisions will be made as time allows by heads of government. I know our government is a part of that.

If there is to be a military engagement of some tactical or strategic definition, it is pretty clear now, for better or for worse, that Canadians will not be in a position to be on the frontlines. If something matures now, we are simply not there. We have naval ships in the area but as everyone has seen it takes weeks and perhaps months to build up, in a modern military sense, forces necessary to engage properly, tactically and efficiently in an engagement of that type. We are not there other than our naval presence.

If Canada is asked to be a part of a coalition, hopefully with a UN sanction, we will be in a position to contribute ground forces, special operations forces, naval, which is already there, and some air. We have those abilities and are capable of providing them, provided the government has the support of the House. If it has to act, I am confident the government will have the support of the House and Canadians. The House does its very best to speak for Canadians. I hope it does not come to that, but it appears we are moving very quickly down that lane.

As I said, the news item last night appears to confirm that Iraq has been holding out and may still be holding out. I regret that. I hope some Iraqis regret that. I know the countries with whom we will be united, if there is to be any kind of a coalition from the UN discussions, feel the same way.

Canada has an armed forces of which Canadians are very proud. It does not take much to make us proud of them. They have contributed over the country's whole history. We have our naval forces, some of which are present in the gulf now and our special operations forces, referred to as the JTF2, which were in Afghanistan. The JTF2 are capable of getting there fairly quickly if needed.

We also have our air contingent. Most countries cannot compete with the huge American air forces that could be put into play. Ours is a small but efficient air component that could be useful in some ways.

There are also our ground forces, which most of us in this place will acknowledge to be just about as good as can be in the world at peacekeeping. Some are pretty darn good at peace making. In the event there is an engagement, I cannot imagine that our government would not be in discussions with other governments about our ability to contribute to a force that would involve itself in a peacekeeping resolution, if not in Iraq, in another the theatre. Apparently there is still peacekeeping to be done in Afghanistan and other areas of the world. As everyone knows, we already have a large contingent in Bosnia.

I will close by saying that this particular member, as he hears from his constituents, does not want to engage in any type of a military action. This must be a last resort. In the event we are called upon, we will have to stand up like big boys and girls and meet the challenge that is there internationally. In a way it is being constructed for us by other countries and other events, but in the end we have a tradition and a history of which we are proud. I cannot see Canadians picking a course that would prevent us from playing a responsible role in the relatively volatile world that confronts us now and in the weeks ahead.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member watched the news. It was disappointing but it was nothing new that Iraq has not been complying. This is something that we know has been going on for 12 years and it will probably continue.

I do not think there is anyone in the House that has any more reason to want peace and no war than myself. I am really convinced that the allied troops, Great Britain, the United States, Australia, Spain, Italy and others who have joined this coalition who are assembling troops in that area as we speak and will continue to do so, will act as a real deterrent to keep that peace. When there is a resolution that says there will be serious consequences if it is not adhered to, one has to be prepared for the serious consequences. I think that is what they are doing. They are showing that strength and unity.

Does the member not believe, as I do, the more people come together with the unified feeling that they do mean business and that this resolution must be complied with and it does mean serious consequences, that for us to stay back would be ammunition for Saddam Hussein to continue this game?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I resist the temptation to get into the debate of how one can make peace by making war, but in the end if enforcement is necessary, it will have to be addressed.

While the Wyatt Earp approach is not the best one, occasionally someone has to stand up and deal with an issue. I think Canadians appreciate that from time to time. Right now I think Canadians want to observe and make an informed judgment in the multilateral arena of the United Nations and in consultation with all of our allies. We will make the best decision when that day comes, if it comes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 3 p.m.

It being 6.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:15 p.m.)